Boston's new planner not a fan of starchitecture

Architecture

Boston's new planner not a fan of starchitecture

by David Alpert • July 1, 2008 10:31 am

The Boston Globe has a detailed profile of the city's new head planner, Kairos Shen. Page 7 discusses Shen's disdain for flashy architecture:

Boston. Photo by Krypto on Flickr.
Shen also hates flash, or designers who toot their own horn architecturally, and he has the architectural background to know it when he sees it. "I prefer the understated and sophisticated approach," he says. "I feel like ... everybody wants to make a monument. Developers push the architect to do it because they want to stand out, because they have to market themselves.
"We don't have to have the fanciest and loudest piece of artwork from a great artist," Shen says. "We want their best work that represents all that this architect has in terms of their skill and thinking but that fits into Boston, that is reflective of the Boston character."

This is the right stance for cities to take about architecture. The architect and developer benefit from a building that stands out relative to its neighbors. But the city is better off with buildings that harmonize with their surroundings.

There's a place for good architecture, of course; well-designed buildings with carefully crafted details improve the city and also get noticed, and we don't need more boring boxes. But the work of "starchitects" like Frank Gehry don't simply fill in the urban fabric with something a little better; they disrupt the urban fabric with their flashiness.

I wonder what Shen thinks about excessive parking around transit?

Via Planetizen.

6 comments — Share	— tags: architecture, Boston

Can architecture transcend its obsession with expressive design? (May 18, 2009)
Architecture begins its road home (Dec 8, 2008)
Architecture as culture, not art (Apr 2, 2008)
No, architecture is not (just) art (Mar 31, 2008)
Why buildings aren't better (Feb 6, 2008)

Comments

Agreed. The big problem with starchitects is they don't seem to realize that architects are supposed to be artisans rather than artists. Architecture is about making functional things beautiful; it is not about abstract sculpture, except in very rare occasions like the Sydney Opera House where the sculpture is really the primary use.

by BeyondDC on Jul 1, 2008 11:10 am

Well, Boston has been particularly burned by bad architectural fads. Boston City Hall is an abomination. What an awful image it is that the heart of of American Revolution has a city hall that looks like prison. That building and the plaza around it are a huge blight.

by Reid on Jul 1, 2008 11:45 am

Do you think the Chicago skyline is studded with "starchiture"? If so, (maybe not, I don't know) is Chicago an exception where it works because it's the tradition?

by Bianchi on Jul 1, 2008 11:46 am

On a similar note to Bianchi, where does Wright's Guggenheim fit into this discussion?

by fartynonsense on Jul 1, 2008 1:08 pm

It's not that the starchitects are incapable of creating buildings that fit in an urban context - they most certainly are. It's that the most recent trend has been for the architect to create an 'icon' that stands out and puts you on 'the map.' The textbook example is Bilbao. That's all Gehry seems to do - and that's all that his clients want him to do. It's not the starchitect per se, it's the fact that there's little difference between the architect and the building. Buy one, and you get the other - it's all a package deal.

Chicago, for the most part, has some iconic skyscrapers, but they are part of a larger whole - the city's grid and skyline. Those projects fit in to an urban context.

by Alex B. on Jul 1, 2008 1:10 pm

I think the Embassy of Canada is a happy middle ground in terms of unique and blending with the environs.

And what of buildings, such as the Mall museums, which effectivelf exist in a visual vacuum relative to the urban environment, despite being in the middle of the city?

by dcseain on Jul 1, 2008 4:05 pm